FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 2000

• 0912

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): There are enough members here, so we'll call the meeting to order. I believe Yvan Bernier is on the speaker phone from somewhere in his riding in Quebec.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Why isn't he here in the House?

The Chair: He said it's because of Air Canada.

Mr. Lou Sekora: He was off last week. Is this some kind of expanded leave?

The Chair: Lou, we're going to deal with future business here, not whether Yvan can get in or not.

Can we have order?

All right, we decided we would meet today on future business and decide what we're going to do as a committee. Just to kind of review where we're at, on October 21, when we originally talked about the business of the committee, there were a number of subjects. Aquaculture was one. A subcommittee was set up, which Carmen chairs, and a plan was laid out. We're kind of off the rails on that plan at the moment.

We tabled a report on the aboriginal fishing strategy and the Marshall decision. We've held some hearings on the Oceans Act review, but we haven't presented a report. We're obligated to deal with that one by December.

The other topics we didn't deal with, to any great extent, were the management of the fisheries, fisheries infrastructure, research and science, and the coast guard. We dealt with the estimates and passed a motion on that as well.

So I guess the question is, where do we go from here? The other topic suggested to me was that maybe we should have one session for briefing on the species at risk legislation and its impact on fisheries. I don't know. I'm just throwing that out. It was suggested to me that it may be important. There are implications on fisheries from that species at risk legislation, and maybe we should have somebody in to have a hearing on that.

We basically need to decide where we're going. The House is scheduled to close on June 23. It may close a week prior to that, from what I've heard, although the House leadership is saying it will go to the 23. I guess we'll see.

• 0915

So where do we go from here? We haven't finished the aquaculture work, and we weren't able to do the east coast tour. Whether that's on or off, I don't know. That's up to the committee to decide.

John Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): I just wanted to mention that my first concern is about Bill C-17, with respect to the fishery. The intent is good, on cruelty to animals, but the way the legislation is drafted, it could be a problem for commercial fishing, recreational angling, or any other pursuit where you're killing animals or fish.

The Chair: Okay, we can talk about that as well.

The floor is open for discussion. Let's have a general discussion first. Then we'll go to the Oceans Act and what we have to do there, the aquaculture study and what we're going to do there—whether we're going to try to travel or leave it until fall—and these other two points on species at risk and cruelty to animals.

Paul is first, on the general discussion.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I support John Duncan on his comments about bringing the cruelty to animals bill, Bill C-17, forward. Obviously that hasn't died. I anticipated it might. I know there have been some changes made, but I'm not sure those changes are going to be enough to please a lot of people.

I think we need to have them come here and explain it to this committee—it should be on the record—for the sports fishing and commercial fishing people involved, and of course many other industries as well, including agriculture. I'd like to see them come forward and explain it to us. Then perhaps we can help them in drafting some changes. So I support John. I think that should be done before we leave, within the next two weeks.

The Chair: I'm not exactly sure of the procedure there. There are other committees dealing with that. But there must be some way we can get a briefing on that legislation and on the species at risk.

Mr. Paul Steckle: This is fairly crucial, because I know those people have already made interventions with my office, and they are concerned. I think it is the proper thing for us to do.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Why don't we send a letter to someone in the department asking them for their opinion on whether or not this is going to impact on the fisheries, as a starting point? We want a pretty quick response.

Mr. Paul Steckle: We'll be told that it won't impact on them.

The Chair: I'll check it out on both points—the species at risk and the cruelty to animals—to see if there's a procedure we can use. We don't want to hold a hearing on the legislation, but we would like a briefing, so the committee knows about any implications of that act on us.

If we decide as a committee, we can write letters to the chairs of the committees looking at it, or the ministers in charge—whatever. We'll check that out. We'd like to have that done prior to the House adjourning for the summer.

Mr. John Duncan: I got the impression—I don't know what signals you got, Paul—from something the minister said in question period the week before we broke that they were going to redraft the legislation. Is that the impression you were left with?

Mr. Paul Steckle: They are. We're going to be briefed on that within the next week. But I don't know whether they've gone far enough. I know the OFAH has a real problem with it.

Mr. John Duncan: Right. Well, so do the cattlemen and all kinds of other people. But from a fisheries standpoint, I'm not sure how many groups have actually spoken up. I know when I meet citizens on the street, that's the bill they bring up.

The Chair: Do you mean the one on cruelty to animals?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes. They're very concerned.

The Chair: All right, can we proceed this way on these two issues? I will check out what procedure we can follow to get a briefing on these two bills. If it's possible to have witnesses on them before the committee, we'll do it at the earliest opportunity. Is that okay?

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Are you assuming the other one is on endangered species?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It has implications on the cod and the salmon—

The Chair: —and a number of others.

Mr. John Duncan: We could probably tie them together, couldn't we?

• 0920

The Chair: We might be able to tie them together. We'll do it in as simple a format as we can. I know previously we ran into trouble in trying to deal with legislation that some other committee was dealing with. So I'm not sure what procedure we can follow, but we certainly need a briefing, whether it's formal or informal.

Mr. John Cummins: On that endangered species issue, where the impact may be greater is not so much on a species like cod, which is a primary target. Where it's actually coming to the fore now is with eulachons on the west coast. This is just one example, and you may have east coast examples, but for the last two or three years, eulachons in the Fraser River have not been in abundance. Part of the blame for that has been attributed to the west coast shrimp fishery. The department is contemplating some regulations to address this issue, but the solution they proposed is actually using the abundance numbers of eulachons from a year ago and not the current abundance estimates. They are reacting to a pressure group of natives, and they are contemplating shutting down that shrimp fishery.

The issue is a strange one. On that eulachon example, the department just doesn't have the science to contradict some of the charges that are being made by some of the native people and perhaps others.

I guess the real question for the department is how to deal with an endangered species or a so-called endangered species. How are you going to define it? Do you have the science to make a proper determination? Then when you do and it has a huge impact on another species, how do you balance that?

The shrimp fishery is a huge, high-value fishery, and shutting that down in the manner they're contemplating is going to be destructive to the industry in a huge way. So it's a very tricky question. It's not just a primary target like cod; where the difficulty comes in—

The Chair: On lesser-known species.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, then that's how we'll proceed on that one.

Does Yvan have anything he wants to add?

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Oui, Wayne, I'm here.

The Chair: Is there anything you want to add to this discussion, Yvan? We pretty near left you out.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Wayne, I don't know if Claudia is there, because your phone is too far away so it's very difficult for me to follow everything.

The Chair: Yes, the interpreters are here.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If you could summarize for me what the purpose is, I could give you my ideas.

The Chair: Yvan, basically what we wanted to look at was the future business of the committee. We need to finish the review of the Oceans Act, so we need to decide whether there are other witnesses we need to hear or how we want to conclude that discussion. We have to make a decision on what we're going to do on the aquaculture study that has been halted for the last six weeks, both domestically and internationally. We'll ask Carmen to report on that.

The other point that was raised was the implication of the species at risk legislation and the cruelty to animals legislation for fisheries. Basically the discussion has been that we will see if there's any way the committee can be given a briefing on those two pieces of legislation either formally or informally, because they are before other committees. We had to find a way of at least getting an overview of what the implications may be for fisheries and go from there.

So that's basically what has happened until now.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If I understand you, on the Oceans Act I believe we have missed some witnesses. I believe we have to hear those who have sent us a copy of what they want to say. Maybe it will be more polite if we listen to them, either by having a video conference or by inviting them to Ottawa.

• 0925

On the aquaculture trip, the part we have done on the west coast...if it's impossible right now to do the east coast, maybe we could do an interim report on this one. We could ask Alan to draft for us a summary or a draft that could be a report on the west coast, an interim report.

For the order of law, I missed part of that. It's very hard for me to understand this morning. If there is a new law in front of the House, I believe you're right; we have to get the briefing from the staff and listen to what will be the impact on the issue of oceans and fisheries and stuff like that.

The Chair: I think we're in agreement, then, Yvan, on looking at the two pieces of legislation and seeing what we can do from that.

To all committee members, in terms of the witnesses we missed on the Oceans Act, there was a technological problem and that was the crab people. They're scheduled to come in next Tuesday, so that will cover all the witnesses, I think.

Are there other witnesses we need to hear?

The Clerk of the Committee: The Canadian Shipping Federation had asked to appear.

The Chair: You're in communication with them?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any other witnesses we need to hear on the Oceans Act?

We'll hear one more witness and conclude and Bill will communicate with the Canadian Shipping Federation to see what their position is. If they need to be heard, we'll hear them; otherwise we'll have a written presentation.

For the Oceans Act, we'll hear one more witness for sure, and that's on Tuesday. The clerk will communicate with the Canadian Shipping Federation and see whether or not they want to be heard. If not, we'll try to conclude on that issue and report on it. I'd like to take a meeting to decide that.

Bill Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, regarding the aquaculture report and the east coast trip, I would like to suggest to the committee that we should at least defer until the fall. I think we're getting into too tight a timeframe now to even think about that, even if the committee were receptive to doing it. I think we should break for the summer and look at hopefully putting something together on that this fall.

The Chair: We're going to move to dealing with the aquaculture study. Let's discuss that then.

Are there any other points?

Mr. John Cummins: I tend to agree with what Bill said. I think we're getting down to short strokes here, and the rumour I hear is that we're going to shut down on June 13 or 14. Whatever housekeeping we have to do, I think we should just do it. I personally would just as soon get ready for summer. I have lots to do.

The Chair: John, the key question from where I sit is, where are you in studying aquaculture further? Truth be known, you're the stumbling block in terms of us doing the east coast tour.

Mr. John Cummins: No, I'm not.

The Chair: You're not going to—

Mr. John Cummins: You have to bring that up in the House.

The Chair: Our House leadership talked to your House leadership and you agreed to travel one time at committee. Then, from what I'm told, the House leadership and the Canadian Alliance are blocking the travel at your request. Until we get over that hurdle, there's not much we can do. Even if we're going to look at travelling in the fall, I would suggest that if we're going to travel nationally and internationally, then we should make those decisions fairly quickly so that we have the money in place now for fall travel rather than coming back in September and spending another month and a half trying to decide what we're going to do.

Lou.

• 0930

Mr. Lou Sekora: I think we should resolve that today. I don't want to go any further. I don't want to postpone anything until this fall and then have the same thing this fall as we're having today. Today either we fish or we go looking for bait first.

The Chair: Fish or cut bait.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Well, yes. Anyway, I think right now we should agree on all sides what it is we want to do. Frankly, if we're going to disband, let's disband now and not go any further. I don't need to waste any more time at these meetings in the mornings, in the afternoons, whenever it is. I have many other meetings I can attend in order to accomplish things, and here it seems we're in a stalemate.

So let's make a decision. Where are we going from here today? And you're right, the fact is that we're going to decide today the money is going to be in the budget for this fall, because if we're going to be scrambling this fall to see if the money is there, I'm not interested. I want to make it very, very plain: I'm not interested in any more games being played. I'm much too busy. I have too many things to do, too many urgent things on my desk, too many urgent committees I have to go to, and too many things I'm looking forward to accomplishing.

The Chair: Bill Matthews. And, Carmen, have you anything to add on this?

Mr. Bill Matthews: I just want to say that I made the fall suggestion because I think we're into a crunch time-wise and obviously we don't have full appetite here yet to finish this work, which was started some time ago. That's why I made the suggestion.

Maybe I could make a suggestion to the committee. Maybe this committee should write the House leadership and tell them that it's the only place in the world where a majority doesn't rule. There are five parties represented in the House of Commons, as I understand it, five House leaders, and four House leaders can give concurrence but one can stop the work of a committee. So I think this committee should write the House leadership and ask them what is so different about democracy with House leaders that having four out of five doesn't work. I think it's a very legitimate, honest question that has to be asked. Why should one House leader or one party hold up the work of Parliament? And that's what happening here to this committee.

I don't think anyone has asked the House leadership that, by the way, and I think we should be the ones to do it, because we're the ones who are stalled now because the Alliance doesn't want to travel.

Mr. John Cummins: I agree with Mr. Matthews. The majority wants to move on this, and there's one House leader who doesn't want to, and that's Mr. Boudria. He's holding the whole thing up. The solution is quite clear. All he has to do is raise the issue in the House, and we'll have a debate. I said we'd only put two speakers forward on it and that would be the end of it. We'd have two speakers, and then away we go.

The Chair: John, there's also another way. If this is an issue of paramount concern to you, in fairness, there weren't questions raised to the minister in the House. There are opposition days you can use. You could even have this debate on an opposition day if you wanted.

Mr. John Cummins: But I've chosen this other route.

The Chair: Yes, I know you have. But on Bill's point, I do know there is some discussion going on about the rules of the House and how they relate to five parties.

An hon. member: It's a little late.

The Chair: Yes, it may be a little late, but there is some discussion.

Carmen Provenzano, and then John Duncan.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Well, Mr. Chair, it's either a long story or a short story, depending on how you tell it. But I'll tell it the Italian way.

Look, we're not really talking this morning about something as narrow as whether we travel now or in the fall. The issue is whether this committee is going to complete its report on aquaculture. Now, you know what we had decided as a committee, and I thought we had unanimous consent to do it this way. We were going to go to the west coast and Washington, the east coast and Maine, and then we were going to go to—

An hon. member: New Brunswick.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Exactly. Then we were going to look at Norway and Scotland and Chile. Then depending on how it went, we were going to look at going to Japan.

At this point we're either 20% or, at the most, 25% along the road in completing the aquaculture report, so the debate really has to be a basic one. Are we going to have a commitment from the committee to complete this report?

• 0935

So the debate really has to be a basic one. Are we going to have a commitment from the committee to complete this report?

If you look, you see it's just the Canadian scene that's only half done. The people on the east coast—you yourself know, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure Mr. Keddy and Mr. Stoffer would attest to this—are expecting the committee to go out there and do the same kind of work it did on the west coast and in Washington. So I think the sooner we get down to that basic debate and....

I now see the wisdom of the resolution or motion of my colleague Matthews about two months ago that we can the whole study. When you look at that now in its proper perspective, that's what we have to do. We have to make a command decision.

I have just a couple of comments, sort of along those lines. The committee knows the minister is interested in aquaculture and that two members representing opposition parties and you and I, Mr. Chair, went to Norway and to Scotland. I can only tell the rest of the committee, as a result of that experience, that while our respective fish farmers on the east and west coasts may have a lot of information to share with people who are doing this elsewhere in the world, from the standpoint of an MP, there's nothing but learning to do. It was one of the nicest experiences—and I think I can speak for the two of us, Mr. Chair, and for Mr. Keddy and Mr. Stoffer. We learned so much about aquaculture, where we are and where we aren't.

So it's just food for thought. I'm for setting a meeting, a time when we just hash this issue out from that basis: are we going to complete it or aren't we? The travel will fall into place if we decide we're going to complete it.

The Chair: I have Mr. Duncan, but I'd suggest the time is now, Carmen. We might as well decide and draft an interim report—

An hon. member: I agree.

The Chair: —on what we've done, or can the study.

Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I just wanted to mention to the committee that I sit on the natural resources committee as well, and we had a west coast trip, and then we were going to make stops in Ontario, Quebec and, I believe, New Brunswick. The government dumped legislation on that committee because they were short of committees to look at legislation. Then the government denied that travel to that committee.

This is very much a two-way street. This is not just the opposition that from time to time denies travel; it's the government as well. I think this all has to be taken into consideration.

That committee still hasn't travelled and there are no plans right now for that committee to travel, and that final report cannot be finished until the committee does travel. So they're in the same boat as this committee is right here.

The Chair: Gerald, did you want in?

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Yes, I'd like to comment on John's comment about the natural resources committees not travelling.

That's a natural resources committee issue. Deal with it. I'm not able to make every natural resources committee meeting, but as our critic for natural resources I make as many as I can. They quite often conflict with fisheries. But deal with it at the table. I haven't heard it brought up.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm just pointing out that it's not just the opposition that denies travel from time to time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If you're not happy about it, deal with it. They should be travelling. They absolutely should be travelling to the east coast. The decision was made to travel. The government's holding it up. Beat your fist on the table, make an issue of it, raise the important points, and deal with it.

Our issue here is that we are not travelling to the east coast when we made a decision to travel. Get over it. Whatever that point was about MacKenzie and Thériault—and we all agreed on committee that we should see them—move on, finish what we're doing. I don't agree not to finish the report on aquaculture. I think it's too important not to finish. However, if we are not going to finish it, then I have four or five points I'm ready to discuss this morning on what this committee should be doing.

The Chair: Okay, any other points?

• 0940

Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. Chairman, I believe we need to finish.... We've been mandated by the minister to do this study and we need to finish it. It's only partially completed at this stage, and I think it's very important. I think it's an industry that needs to grow in Canada, and it has the opportunity to grow. We have a job to do. We've been mandated to do it and I think we need to get on with it and make that commitment today to do that. I know we can't travel now, but let's make the commitment to do it and to conclude this work this fall.

The Chair: Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If we're not going to travel now, then what are we going to do between now and the close of Parliament?

The Chair: Well, you were a little late, Gerald—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, I missed it.

The Chair: —but we are going to check out the possibility of looking at the legislation on cruelty to animals and on species at risk, the two—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Good idea.

The Chair: —and see what their implications are on fisheries. We have to find a procedure there, because other committees are dealing with it, not us. We'll get back to the committee on that.

On Tuesday we will complete our look at the Oceans Act with the witnesses we had the technological difficulty with last week or a couple of weeks ago—the crab producers.

The clerk is going to check into whether or not the Canadian shippers' federation wants to be heard. If not, we will complete that work and get it behind us. That's all that's on the agenda at the moment.

Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I'm sorry I came late, Mr. Chairman. I know we're discussing travel to the east coast, but a few weeks ago I mentioned to you and some colleagues here whether we couldn't travel to Ontario because Ontario has a big fishing industry in aquaculture. I think that would be a good addition to our program, because we know the east coast and we know the west coast, but we don't know Ontario, the heartland of Canada. I think we should spend a couple of days there to study the aquaculture business. I think we'd have good input from the business people in Ontario.

I would appreciate it if you would add that to your program if it's possible. If you have the support of the opposition, probably, and of some members here, probably we could do a good job. It doesn't cost too much money; it's just down the road.

The Chair: I think the bottom line here at the moment, Sarkis, is whether we travel to complete our study or not. We had agreed to the east coast and to international travel to a certain extent—or to the east coast, anyway.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: How about Ontario? Are we going to do Ontario or...?

The Chair: Well, we can discuss that. I agree. In the State of Virginia, for instance, they do all kinds of aquaculture in old mines—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: We're doing the same thing in Ontario, as you know.

The Chair: —and maybe it needs to be looked at. If we agree to finish the aquaculture study, that's a possibility. If the committee wants to do that, we can propose it to the House and go ahead.

Is there any further discussion? Yes, Yvan.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: On the aquaculture study, I believe we have to keep in mind what happened this spring. There are two big issues to discuss. I have one and John Cummins has one.

What we have to remember is the real democracy. Everybody around the table has done their job. John wants to be sure that his point will be listened to by every Canadian, and we do not have this chance when we only discuss it in committee. The only way we have to bring that into the House of Commons is to be sure that we don't travel, because that is the main point we want. The main point you want, as the government side, is not to allow discussion of the aboriginal issue.

So what we have to remember is that when both have important points, everybody uses the tools they have. The only chance we have to resolve, to be sure the committee will work on what we want, to be sure we will bring to the House the points we can be agreed on together.... If we don't do that, we'll still have the problem in the next...next fall or next winter, I don't know.

If we always try to hide the main point that we have under the carpet, we will never resolve our problem. I don't understand why we don't bring that to the House. I was informed that some member around the table has put

[Translation]

a notice of motion on the Order Paper.

• 0945

[English]

Maybe the clerk could confirm the word for you.

But why has nobody raised the point in the House? We have to discuss it, because until then, I'm sure John's comments will never erase his point, and for sure in this case I would do the same. We have to try to find a way to resolve our main point in the committee. If we can't, we have to take our courage in our hands and bring it to the House—and never mind if our party agrees or not.

If we don't do it, everybody around the table will have to assume the responsabilité that we are paralysed.

[Translation]

We are paralyzed.

[English]

So maybe that's a philosophical statement this morning, but that's the important thing that you have to remember, that this spring we just take into account that everybody knows the rules of the committee and the rules of the House and that everybody will play by those rules in the future. So if we try to set up anything important for the committee, we know that we are five parties, we have five agendas, and five particular issues to watch, and it goes on. We will never go in front of the other problems or results.

I'm not sure that will be agreeable to John, but I have to agree with him that those are the only two he has to stop and paralyse our committee. We have to get together the courage to discuss it. I don't know who will probe the silence, but someone has to do it.

The Chair: Well, Yvan, basically the motion that was in the House has really in effect died now, because the dates have passed.

Just so we're all on the same wavelength, if we, as a committee, present a report to the House on travel, any MP can table a motion of concurrence in that, can bring it up in the House by way of motion and have it debated. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes, we have to discuss it. Someone will say why he agrees and some will say why they don't agree.

The Chair: I know that in the last—

Mr. Yvan Bernier: The deal that I was informed about, what I have heard about, is that in the past the leader could agree on that, but they want to be sure that it will be a long day.... They want to be sure that it will be accepted on division—but we have to discuss it.

The Chair: Okay.

Are there any comments?

Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yvan, I think the other way to have this brought up in the House.... As much as I understand what your comments are about—and I have a certain amount of respect for them—there's the other issue that I think is important. As far as I'm concerned, quite frankly, we have individual issues and we have party issues. It may be an individual issue for Yvan or it may be an individual issue for John, but it is certainly not a party issue.

If it were a party issue, you'd make an opposition day out of it. If this were bread and butter, if it were really important to any political party, they'd make an opposition day of it. You'd have all day to debate it. You could put up all kinds of speakers. Every party would be represented.

Make it an opposition day if it's important to the Alliance Party or the Bloc Québécois. I'd be happy to participate in that debate and have my opportunity to speak about the Conservative Party's opinions on it. If it's important, if it's not an individual issue, and if it's important to your party, make it an opposition day, debate it, and be done with it.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Could I answer, Wayne?

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm not sure I understand, because the phone is very far from you, Gerald, but when I say “as an individual”, I know that everybody is in a party and that we have to take account of what our party thinks about that.

But in the case of John Cummins, I know that maybe his party doesn't allow time for the opportunity or a question in question period or stuff like that, but it's still the opposition party when the whip accepts not to allow the committee to travel because John Cummins has raised the point with him. So it could look like a vicious issue, but it's still the opposition party, because his whips support him.

• 0950

So if we want to resolve the problem we have to

[Translation]

to take the bull by the horns.

[English]

Maybe Bill Farrell could translate that for you.

The Chair: I don't think he's up to it, Yvan.

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: Take the bull by the horns.

The Chair: Take the bull by the horns—yes, that's a good expression, Yvan.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I don't have a real answer this morning, but we have to take this point in our mind and try to do our best. Until we resolve that kind of problem, we still will be on the break.

The Chair: Well, if we have a motion of the committee to travel, and you're looking for the debate in the House, John, are you willing to put a motion of concurrence and bring it up and debate it?

Mr. John Cummins: I believe I have a concurrence motion in there right now.

The Chair: Yes, but the date's past.

I know Gerald has a motion of concurrence, Stoffer has a motion of concurrence, and you, but the dates are past. So it's a dead issue, is it not?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Maybe Mr. Farrell could answer for us. Those people who have raised those kinds of motions, I don't know if they could raise a point of privilege in the House after question period, and after him each member on this committee could express on this point of privilege too.

The Chair: Maybe I'm wrong on this—Bill can correct me if I'm wrong—but I think the simplest way to get the debate in the House, if that's what's required, is to pass another motion for the committee to travel on specific dates in the fall. Somebody could put it back to the House by way of a report, whoever—a member of the House, anyway—and move a motion of concurrence and bring it up in the House and it will be either debated or voted on. We've done that before.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm sure that Carmen Provenzano will raise this point this morning, and I will support him.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, the question here really is whether or not on this particular issue the committee is willing to hold the government accountable. That's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.

We have this matter of MacKenzie and Thériault. There's the question of receiving these legal agreements as they're signed. There's the question of the legal basis for the government's response to this Marshall decision. The issue isn't dead.

Two weeks ago there was an article in the National Post where the reporter suggested that the government intended to apply this Marshall decision to the Douglas Treaties on Vancouver Island. The minister adamantly denied that this was the case. Then just this past week there was a report in Victoria where he's saying he intends to do that. He intends to give fish on Vancouver Island to the natives covered by the Douglas Treaties on the basis of the Marshall decision of the Supreme Court. How does he come to these conclusions?

The issue is still very much alive. Last Friday I got another bloody summons in the mail from these Nazis down at the Attorney General on the same issue. This is for something that went on two years ago, for a protest two years ago. Guys are now starting to get summonses.

Our view is that this whole issue is explosive. It needs to be addressed. The committee has to take it seriously, and it's not doing it.

The Chair: John, what you're talking about is things beyond the fisheries committee itself. We've had the minister here. We've had the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans before this committee twice. You had the opportunity to question him. Certainly we didn't have MacKenzie and Thériault, I'll admit to that. But the minister is the one who's responsible for them, and he in fact was here.

To discuss that broad an issue that you want to discuss, the place to do it is on an opposition day in the House. If your party is not willing to take this up on an opposition day—

• 0955

Mr. John Cummins: Look, there are four parties in here that are prepared to travel, so the opportunity is there. If you want to travel, make it your opposition day, and we'll go at it.

If the committee is not prepared to hold the minister accountable for his actions, then what's the point of even travelling on aquaculture? I mean, that's the issue, isn't it?

The Chair: John, we are.

Mr. John Cummins: No, you're not.

The Chair: We are. You're mixing issues.

Mr. John Cummins: No, I'm not.

The Chair: You're mixing issues.

We had the minister before this committee twice, once on estimates and once on Marshall, and you had the opportunity to question him.

Mr. John Cummins: That's right, and I did, yes.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Point of order.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Lou Sekora: The fact is we're hashing this thing over and over again.

Mr. John Cummins: That's right.

Mr. Lou Sekora: What has happened, very clearly, is we were denied to travel, yet John went to those provinces by himself and travelled. I mean, what is this, if it's not somebody trying to kick you in the head?

The Chair: Lou, I don't want to get into that. What I would suggest is—

Mr. Lou Sekora: I'm saying that I don't want to be sitting here much longer on this kind of garbage. I don't want to hear that garbage that they're spilling on that side. Let's get on with it and take a vote. Either we're going to do something or we're not. Mr. Chair, I am not going to waste my time in here.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, can I have a point of order?

The Chair: Mr. Sarkis Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

I think earlier Mr. Cummins described government officials as “Nazis”. Am I right? Is that the word you used, “Nazis”? You confirm, you deny? Yes, no? What's the story?

Mr. John Cummins: I meant Brownshirts.

The Chair: Anyway, I'm not—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, no. Excuse me, sir. That's very insulting. We are all part of the government, like it or not. We are members of Parliament. I don't want people to be called Nazis in this place. If you're a Nazi yourself, that's a different problem, but you can't call others Nazis, you know. I think you should retract your statement about government members—

Mr. John Cummins: I'll do that for you.

The Chair: Okay, Sarkis. The words are withdrawn, Sarkis. Thank you.

The suggestion was made by Bill that we travel in the fall. I guess the only way to deal with this issue is to put forward a motion with specific dates attached on the travel, and I think somebody needs to sit down and come up with.... I'm taking that there's general agreement that we not travel this spring, that we look at it for the fall. Is that correct?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Chairman, I'd say if we're very wise now we'd say some time in the future. I think that's as specific as I'd want to get on this.

The Chair: Bill, in all seriousness, for us to deal—

Mr. Bill Matthews: I am serious.

The Chair: I know, but for us to deal with it in the House, we had specific dates in order to do it. So the only way we're going to resolve this issue is to clearly put a motion to the House on dates for the fall, and table it as a report. Somebody will have to move concurrence. I'm sure we can find someone, even if it's a member of our own party, the governing party, to move concurrence. See where it goes in the House from there, and that's it.

Obviously John doesn't have the support of the Reform Party to take an opposition day debate on this.

Mr. John Cummins: Absolutely.

An hon. member: I agree.

An hon. member: Not the Reform Party.

The Chair: The Canadian Alliance Party.

Mr. Bill Matthews: You haven't changed a thing, John.

The Chair: Anyway, I suggest that....

Mr. John Cummins: I think if you're going to do something in the fall, you might want to wait and have a look and see what's happening, don't you?

The Chair: If something happens in terms of an election or otherwise, I mean, everything is moot anyway. But we might as well proceed with the idea of completing our work.

Could I suggest, Carmen, that your subcommittee come up with dates and a motion to put forward to the committee for the fall, inclusive of the point that Sarkis raised on Ontario and international, tie it all together and let's get it done?

Mr. John Cummins: The agenda that's going to be prepared, is that going to be consistent with the original motion on the committee travel, which was to examine aquaculture in New Brunswick and Maine? It was B.C. and Washington, New Brunswick and Maine, and then to continue on. It wasn't to do a dog-and-pony show throughout the domain.

• 1000

The Chair: Well, if the subcommittee in its wisdom comes up with a broader view of the industry, what's wrong with that?

Mr. John Cummins: The reason was that to a certain extent we were looking at an economy of time, just going to the trouble spots to look at the issue. That was what we agreed to in committee. It was only thereafter that somebody—and I don't know who it was—decided in their wisdom that we would travel the dominion on this.

The Chair: One thing we learned in B.C., John, was that there was some concern over sea-cage aquaculture, and there were areas in the proposal to look at land-based aquaculture. There are some in Prince Edward Island and there are some elsewhere. Why not look at some of the positive experiences in that area as well? I mean, why just go to the trouble spots?

At any rate, Carmen, if that committee can come forward with a report and an attached motion, we can deal with it. You can take whatever position you may, and we'll have somebody move a motion of concurrence and see if it can be debated in the House.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm all for discussion. We had a discussion in committee, and as I say, the motion came out of the blue on it. I'm open on it, but I just bring it to your attention that if you're going to go beyond what was mandated by the committee, then I think that should have come back to committee for agreement at that point, and it didn't.

The Chair: All right.

There is one other difficulty here. I understand the budget liaison committee has likely its final meeting on Tuesday of next week. So we really need....

Well, will that matter if we're going to debate it in the House? We have the money in place for the east coast but not internationally.

I'm wondering how soon we have to have a motion from Carmen's committee for the 48 hours' notice to debate it.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: When are we scheduled to meet again, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Tuesday, on the crab...on the Oceans Act.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Just as a suggestion, can we meet as a committee right after we meet on Tuesday as a whole committee?

The Chair: Can you meet before that? Yes, we can meet as a full committee, but is there any way the subcommittee can meet this week so that we have the 48-hour notice on what motion you're proposing?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'm open to that.

The Chair: We have this room until 11 a.m. today, but people haven't been notified, I guess.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I guess we can just ask the members of the subcommittee if they're prepared to stay. I'm prepared to stay.

The Chair: Who's on the subcommittee? I haven't got the list.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'll stay.

The Chair: Bill will stay, and Gerald, Peter, and Yvan....

Well, Yvan is on the phone, and I don't know if Lawrence is on it or not.

We'll adjourn fairly quickly then. The subcommittee will meet immediately following this meeting.

We now have Marcel's motion. You have the motion before you—well, it's been before us several times—and 48 hours' notice has been given.

Shall I read the motion, Marcel?

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Yes, read the motion, because I haven't got it in front of me.

The Clerk: The motion reads:

That the committee issue a press release throughout the Maritimes and the province of Quebec explaining that the Canadian Alliance refuses the committee authorization to travel in these areas.

The Chair: The motion is before you. It's open for discussion.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Question.

The Chair: I'm going to see if there is any discussion first.

Mr. Lou Sekora: It's straightforward.

• 1005

The Chair: I know it's straightforward, but I'm not going to call the question without any debate.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I will; question.

The Chair: I'm opening the floor to debate.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Question.

The Chair: Go ahead, Yvan.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Is it for discussion?

The Chair: Yes, it is.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If I understand the motion—and I don't have it in front of me—you want to inform all the population that we can't travel because the Canadian Alliance doesn't want it.

The Chair: I'll let Marcel explain it to you. It's Marcel's motion.

Go ahead, Marcel.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Hello, Yvan.

We just want the committee to issue a press release everywhere in the Maritimes and in Quebec saying that the Canadian Alliance did not allow this committee to travel to those areas.

[English]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: On discussion?

The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: First, I think that the press release is not clear. I am not sure we can change it, but you will tell me. If we want it to be clear, we must include the rationale for this request.

[English]

We have to offer in this news release information on the other side, why the Canadian Alliance doesn't want it. It doesn't want it because the government side doesn't agree to let us meet with a mediator or negotiator on the aboriginal issue.

Because there is this lack in terms of this news release, I will not be able to support it. If we want to discuss it, if we ever discuss it, we want a debate in the House, or we want someone to bring the debate in the House.

What we have in front of us now will not resolve the problem. The only thing that could help us, because only one side will be in this news release, would be to make sure John Cummins explains well to the reporter why he doesn't want this. All of us can as well, but we will not be able to control what will be the result after that.

Both issues are very important. Aquaculture and ocean law have to be studied, and the aboriginal question has to be studied as well. As the official opposition, it's their job, but that kind of motion will not resolve the issues involved, and I will not be able to support it.

The Chair: Thank you, Yvan.

Mr. Duncan, and then Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. John Duncan: I wanted to make the simple point that if we're going to vote on this motion, it should be a recorded vote.

The Chair: It will be. Thanks, John.

Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

I have two points. First, as Yvan said, if the opposition wants to put their own explanation to our press release, I'm sure they can do that at any time. They've done it in the past and they can do it again, so that should be an irrelevant issue.

I'd like to add a friendly amendment to the motion, if possible. Where it says “Canadian Alliance”, can you add, in brackets, “the former Reform Party”? A lot of people don't know the Canadian Alliance.

Is that agreeable, Marcel?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No problem at all. I'm all for clarity.

The Chair: At any rate, it is a motion that's on the table and it is a motion that we have to deal with, John, one way or another.

Is there any further discussion?

Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think maybe we should just listen to Yvan's comments for a minute, because he made a fair amount of sense. This just gets into one-upmanship and is really no better than what John's been doing with the committee all along, just jerking our string.

I'll make one other caution. I'll make it because I want it on the record. You know, we made a mistake when we approved the original motion to combine two issues. That was the committee's mistake. We should never have done that. Hopefully we've learned from that so that in future we'll deal with one issue at a time, or two issues at a time but individually.

• 1010

When you read the original motion to have Thériault...and it's the government's job to make sure that MacKenzie and Thériault would have appeared before the committee and they didn't. So I agree with John on that point, and it's the only point that I agree with him on. But we made the mistake of combining the two issues and therefore we're going to be held to ransom for that.

I put my own press release out. If the committee wants to put one out, go ahead. I don't know if we gained or not.

The Chair: I'll go to Carmen, and then we're going to call the question.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: With the greatest respect to my colleague, Marcel Proulx, we have plenty of time to call each other names, Mr. Chair. In the meantime, I would say let's exercise our honest efforts to see if we can come to a resolution. At this point I would not be supporting this motion.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? All the points have been raised and we'll call the vote—a recorded vote.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: With the amendment?

The Chair: I didn't accept the amendment.

Marcel.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: In good faith, I'm the new kid on the block in this committee. When I first—

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Welcome aboard.

The Chair: Go ahead, Marcel.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I haven't tried to attend this committee at a distance yet, but I will eventually.

When I joined this committee I was under the impression that I and those on this side of the table were not the only ones who were here in good faith. It's obvious to me when I look at the documents that two trips had been agreed to, one on the west coast and one on the east coast.

I think if ever there was a mistake, the mistake was there, that you first travelled to the west coast instead of starting on the east coast.

It's very unfortunate, but I don't think we're moving ahead with anything on this. I think these are just tactics from the opposition parties to hold us back in our work that should be so important and interesting.

I find it very unfortunate. Nevertheless I want to withdraw this motion this morning, and I'll give one more chance for the committee, in good faith, to arrive at a solution.

The Chair: You need unanimous consent to withdraw, I think.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Do I have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. John Cummins: We should have a vote. You have a motion and you vote on it.

The Chair: What the mover of the motion is proposing, though, is that it be withdrawn. We need unanimous consent to withdraw it and that's what I'm asking. Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. John Cummins: No. I'd like to see you vote your own motion down.

The Chair: All right, it's on the floor. We'll have a recorded vote.

No vote for you, Yvan, we're sorry.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: For the record, if I was there I would say, no.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 2)

The Chair: The motion is carried. Clerk, you're going to have to prepare something on this, and we'll release it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If I could make a suggestion, I think the recorded vote should be in the press release as well.

Mr. John Duncan: This is an in camera meeting, but you do what you want to do.

The Chair: It's a public meeting.

Mr. John Duncan: Is it a public meeting? Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It would explain the Alliance's very firm and clear position on this issue.

The Chair: The mover wanted to take it off the table and you wouldn't allow it, John. It's that simple.

Anyway, the motion's done, the motion's carried, and we'll deal with it. Is there any further business anyone wants to bring up?

• 1015

Then can the subcommittee chairman—

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Just before you close, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: —if we could have the clerk read off the names of the people who were on the aquaculture subcommittee....

The Chair: Have you got them there?

The Clerk: Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Keddy, Mr. Bernier, Mr. Provenzano—

The Chair: And Mr. Gilmour.

The Clerk: And Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Matthews: And Mr. O'Brien?

The Chair: No.

Any further business?

Mr. John Cummins: Who was that again? Stoffer, Keddy, Provenzano, Bernier, and Gilmour.

What does it take for a quorum on that, or is there one?

The Chair: The subcommittee will meet immediately following the meeting.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.